 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / December 2005Where's my Bud, Popeye
Have you read Tim O'Brian's work: "The Things They Carried?" > Have you read Tim O'Brian's work: "The Things They Carried?" No, but I got a new iPOD thingy if it comes in mp3. >> Have you read Tim O'Brian's work: "The Things They Carried?" > > No, but I got a new iPOD thingy if it comes in mp3. I got me an iPOD too. I use it to listen to all my NPR shows while I work out. Anyway, "The Things They Carried is a very good book about one soldier's experience in Vietnam. I remember first reading O'Brian back in college. At the time I thought he was a good author but still young. It was a pleasure to see how much he has improved over the years. I'll have to go back and read some of his other works. I assume that you did read "Jarhead?" I didn't care much for that one. I found it rather whiney. suds >>> Have you read Tim O'Brian's work: "The Things They Carried?" >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I assume that you did read "Jarhead?" I didn't care much for that one. I > found it rather whiney. Not yet. I'm on a WW2 submarine kick this month. > suds Try to find: (geographically, north to south) "U-Boats Against Canada: German Submarines in Canadian Waters" by Michael Hadley "U-boats offshore" by Edwin Palmer Hoyt (can be hard to find) "The U-Boat War in the Caribbean" by Gaylord T. M. Kelshall (can be a dry read) -hh > No, but I got a new iPOD thingy if it comes in mp3. Stop by and I'll fill it up for you. I've only got 1,500 or so mp3s, everything from classical to trucker, to country to oldies, to rock. If I ever owned it, I have it. If I thought I would like it and knew its name I acquired it. If it happened to get in my way (usually), I saved it. Lee > > No, but I got a new iPOD thingy if it comes in mp3. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Lee I've got some of the Harry Potter books in MP3 format if you're interested. :-) >> > No, but I got a new iPOD thingy if it comes in mp3. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > interested. > :-) Love to. >> No, but I got a new iPOD thingy if it comes in mp3. > > Stop by and I'll fill it up for you. I've only got 1,500 or so mp3s, > everything from classical to trucker, to country to oldies, to rock. If I > ever owned it, I have it. If I thought I would like it and knew its name > I acquired it. If it happened to get in my way (usually), I saved it. I'll trade you back 580 hits, from Devo to Soggy Bottom Boys. Anybody know a good place to -rent- mp3 books? Or buy at a reasonable price, 3-5$? Some cites I check specifically state lack of compatibility to iPOD. > Lee You might try audible.com They are a little higher than the price you quoted, but they work with I-pod (I'm pretty sure). ~$10 per book, give or take. If that doesn't work and you don't care about copyright law, there's always LimeWire... > >> No, but I got a new iPOD thingy if it comes in mp3. > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > > Lee > You might try audible.com > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > about > copyright law, there's always LimeWire... How do you get books from LimeWire? Download the software Search for the book you want. It works like Kazaa and Napster (used to). That whole illegal file sharing thing. I could be wrong, but I'd guess that the selection might be somewhat limited. > > You might try audible.com > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > How do you get books from LimeWire? >>> No, but I got a new iPOD thingy if it comes in mp3. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >> Lee Popeye, check with your library at your home base, most of them if you have a card will allow you to download books. Also check out alt.binnaries.mp3.audiobooks > Stop by and I'll fill it up for you. Of course Doug will agree to not listen to the exact same one that you might be listening to at any particular point in time, thus bypassing any possible copywrite issues, right? < Snap snap, grin grin, wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more> > Of course Doug will agree to not listen to the exact same one that you might > be listening to at any particular point in time, thus bypassing any > possible > copywrite issues, right? > < Snap snap, grin grin, wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more> No. I'll agree not to. It's easier for me to control myself than for anybody to control Popeye. Lee >> Stop by and I'll fill it up for you. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > possible > copywrite issues, right? You're confusing licensing with copyright, and I don't believe that MP3s are licensed like network software. > You're confusing licensing with copyright, and I don't believe that MP3s are > licensed like network software. Personally, I treat it like a book... Multiple people can read a book, just not at the same time (looking over someone's shoulder doesn't count)... Borland did their licensing that way, but I think I was correct with I referred to it as copyright (regardless of the fact that I spelled it wrong the first time)... Lee's just loaning Doug the MP3s and he's already said that he will ensure that he and Doug do not listen to the same song at the exact same time... Thus, no copyright violation, right? > Personally, I treat it like a book... Multiple people can read a book, > just > not at the same time (looking over someone's shoulder doesn't count)... Looking over the shoulder counts the same as plugging in a second set of headphones. And Lee can feel free to loan Popeye his MP3 player, just like he would loan him a book. But copying the MP3 is the same as photocopying the book, a definitely violation of copyright law even if Lee and Popeye promise not to read the book at the same time. > Borland did their licensing that way, but I think I was correct with I > referred to it as copyright (regardless of the fact that I spelled it > wrong > the first time)... Lee's just loaning Doug the MP3s and he's already said > that he will ensure that he and Doug do not listen to the same song at the > exact same time... Thus, no copyright violation, right? Wrong. As long as there is no copy, there is no copyright violation. If Lee loans Doug the MP3 player, there is no copyright violation. If Lee copies the MP3 onto Popeye's MP3 player, there is a copyright violation. > > Personally, I treat it like a book... Multiple people can read a book, > > just [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the book, a definitely violation of copyright law even if Lee and Popeye > promise not to read the book at the same time. How about if Lee Gives him the files (moves them from Lee's machine to Popeye's)? > > Borland did their licensing that way, but I think I was correct with I > > referred to it as copyright (regardless of the fact that I spelled it [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Doug the MP3 player, there is no copyright violation. If Lee copies the MP3 > onto Popeye's MP3 player, there is a copyright violation. What if the original gets deleted after the transfer? Chris Guynn a écrit : > > > Personally, I treat it like a book... Multiple people can read a book, > > > just [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > How about if Lee Gives him the files (moves them from Lee's machine to > Popeye's)? Provided Lee is the legitimate owner of the MP3 files, then apparently he is entitled to transfer them (sell or give away). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine > > > Borland did their licensing that way, but I think I was correct with I > > > referred to it as copyright (regardless of the fact that I spelled it [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > What if the original gets deleted after the transfer? Then it's not copying, it's transfering, and should be legal to the extent Lee owned the original. Apparently some of the music was originally purchased as records before being copied to his iPod, whether he legally owns the copies stored in his iPod is another question. Cheers, Froggy > How about if Lee Gives him the files (moves them from Lee's machine to > Popeye's)? > What if the original gets deleted after the transfer? As far as I can tell, it should be legal in theory, just like giving away (or reselling) an original album or CD. Clearly, though, enforcement is problematic since there's no way to tell the original apart from a copy. And most file transfers, AFAIK, physically involve making a copy and then deleting the original. One commentator has written the following: "Another significant exception which may prove important in the case of downloaded music is the First Sale Doctrine (17 U.S.C. § 109), which allows a person who has legally obtained a copy of a phonorecord to sell or dispose of it without authorization from the copyright holder. Currently, if you buy a CD from the store, you are free to give it to a friend or sell it to a used CD store. You paid for it, you may dispose of it as you wish. However, the restrictions of the DMCA, and the protections being built into MP3 copyright protection mechanisms, will make such a transfer both illegal and impossible. Like the fair use implications, it remains to be seen how this will end up. In the meantime it is the subject of heated debate and merits attention." "Another significant exception which may prove important in the case of > downloaded music is the First Sale Doctrine (17 U.S.C. § 109), which > allows a person who has legally obtained a copy of a phonorecord to sell [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > being built into MP3 copyright protection mechanisms, will make such a > transfer both illegal and impossible. No problem then. If it's impossible, they we don't have to worry about illegal, do we? People have been making copies of music as long as there has been a means to do so. When I was quite young, well before many here were born, I had a reel to reel tape recorder I used to copy music. Then came cassettes and copying music became very common. There was nary a peep from the music industry. They clearly didn't care. Finally, after 50 years of copying music, MP3s became the media of choice. Now, all of a sudden, everybody cares. Perhaps, Greg, this should be one of your instances of civil disobedience, a chance for you to tilt at the windmills of unfair government and corporate practices. Few things could be noble than resisting even the suggestion that something you had purchased was not, in fact, yours, but instead still the property of the entity that sold it to the entity that sold it to the entity that sold it to . . . you. Software laws are an unfunny joke. What other tool has ever been made that may be used only once, in a single location, by a single craftsman? Lee > People have been making copies of music as long as there has been a means > to do so. When I was quite young, well before many here were born, I had [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > copying music, MP3s became the media of choice. Now, all of a sudden, > everybody cares. They cared, but enforcement was difficult. Most of the caring came initially from the motion picture industry after Beta and then VHS made movie pirating a real problem. When DAT came along, music companies started to get real scared. Fast forward to today, with MP3s and file sharing utilities, and the record companies (and movie companies) are positively petrified. Fearful industries worth billions of dollars can be formidable legal forces. They pay for lots of lawyers and lots of lobbyists and have managed to mold the laws to their liking. > Perhaps, Greg, this should be one of your instances of civil disobedience, > a chance for you to tilt at the windmills of unfair government and > corporate practices. Few things could be noble than resisting even the > suggestion that something you had purchased was not, in fact, yours, but > instead still the property of the entity that sold it to the entity that > sold it to the entity that sold it to . . . you. Our entire economy is based on paper that our government allows us to keep. We don't really own anything. I'm lucky to have what I have. Find another hero to tilt at windmills on your behalf. I firmly believe in and support the federal copyright law that I was sworn to uphold, as should you. > Software laws are an unfunny joke. What other tool has ever been made > that may be used only once, in a single location, by a single craftsman? What other tool has ever been made that can be duplicated, exactly, for absolutely no money at all? What sort of incentive does the producer of software, or of music, movies, or art, have to continue producing if there's no money in it? The end result would be that all our works of art, or software, would be amateur efforts at best. Occasionally you might have a group amateur effort like Linux succeed, but that sort of collaborative effort doesn't work well with painting, music, or literature. >> People have been making copies of music as long as there has been a means >> to do so. When I was quite young, well before many here were born, I had [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> copying music, MP3s became the media of choice. Now, all of a sudden, >> everybody cares. > They cared, but enforcement was difficult. They had a damned strange way of showing it. Several of the retailers of recording equipment were the same companies producing the records. > Most of the caring came initially from the motion picture industry after > Beta and then VHS made movie pirating a real problem. We're taking music here, but you're correct otherwise. My first video recorder was sold by RCA. So were a substantial number of the records in my collection. > Fast forward to today, with MP3s and file sharing utilities, and the > record companies (and movie companies) are > positively petrified. As they should be. After 50 years of gouging the public, the public has turned its back on them. Even at .99 a copy, we're talking $20 for a CD's worth of songs on a media that costs me less than $.25 and surely costs them even less. > Fearful industries worth billions of dollars can be formidable legal > forces. They pay for lots of lawyers and lots of > lobbyists and have managed to mold the laws to their liking. Yes they have. When are you going to start your acts of civil disobediance. This time, I'll support your effort. >> Perhaps, Greg, this should be one of your instances of civil >> disobedience, a chance for you to tilt at the windmills of unfair >> government and corporate practices. Few things could be noble than >> resisting even the suggestion that something you had purchased was not, >> in fact, yours, but instead still the property of the entity that sold it >> to the entity that sold it to the entity that sold it to . . . you. > Our entire economy is based on paper that our government allows us to > keep. We don't really own anything. I'm lucky to have what I have. I own my rights and one of them ensures that I have at least some chance of retaining them. Sorry about yours. > Find another hero to tilt at windmills on your behalf. I firmly believe > in and support the federal copyright law that I was sworn to uphold, as > should you. Now you're sworn to uphold federal law? Where was your oath when we were talking OFAC? >> Software laws are an unfunny joke. What other tool has ever been made >> that may be used only once, in a single location, by a single craftsman? > What other tool has ever been made that can be duplicated, exactly, for > absolutely no money at all? You can't do that with software either. > What sort of incentive does the producer of software, or of music, movies, > or art, have to continue producing if > there's no money in it? Bill Gates makes more in one year than you and I will make in our entire lives, combined. He sells millions of copies of Windows every year for several hundred dollars. If he would settle for one copy per person instead of one copy per machine, he'd still make more money than god. It's hardly a matter of no money in it. It could, however, be a matter of a reasonable amount of money in it. > The end result would be that all our works of art, or software, would be > amateur efforts at best. You think they're not now? Interestingly Bean Books has about a hundred e-books available on line for absolutely nothing. They seem to think it's a good, profitable, concept. It's one that I certainly appreciate. Lee > Now you're sworn to uphold federal law? Where was your oath when we were > talking OFAC? OFAC affects my constitutional rights. There is no constitutional right to stealing. >> What other tool has ever been made that can be duplicated, exactly, for >> absolutely no money at all? > You can't do that with software either. You can't? That's odd. I can do it from where I'm sitting right now without even working up a sweat. It would take me about 5 seconds with the mouse. Are you posting from WebTV or something? > Bill Gates makes more in one year than you and I will make in our entire > lives, combined. He sells millions of copies of Windows every year for > several hundred dollars. If he would settle for one copy per person > instead of one copy per machine, he'd still make more money than god. > It's hardly a matter of no money in it. It could, however, be a matter of > a reasonable amount of money in it. Sure, and make sure you also enforce reasonable salaries for professional athletes, doctors, corporate CEOs, and even lawyers. I'm sure Lenin or Stalin could help you with the details. Or ask your buddy Castro to help out. Last time I was in Cuba, my bellhop let me know he used to be an engineer but it was decided that his job was only worth about $6 a month, so he decided to get into the luggage handling industry instead. How's about this: if you don't think that a certain song is worth the price, simply don't listen to it. Write your own songs and play them back to yourself and it's completely free. >> The end result would be that all our works of art, or software, would be >> amateur efforts at best. > > You think they're not now? Obviously people are paying for it. If they think it's so amateur, then they should do it themselves for free. > Interestingly Bean Books has about a hundred e-books available on line for > absolutely nothing. They seem to think it's a good, profitable, concept. > It's one that I certainly appreciate. Hey, I've heard the Salvation Army is giving away free soup. And maybe you can score a free Christmas dinner this year if you don't shave for a few days and take a dumpster dive before heading to one of Miami's homeless shelters. What a deal! Greg Mossman a écrit : > What other tool has ever been made that can be duplicated, exactly, for > absolutely no money at all? What sort of incentive does the producer of > software, or of music, movies, or art, have to continue producing if there's > no money in it? The end result would be that all our works of art, or > software, would be amateur efforts at best. As evidenced by the fact that no noteworthy litterary work was produced between the time printing press was invented and copyright laws implemented. Or by the fact that societies where none of these notions exist failed to produce anything of artistic value. I'm not saying that intellectual property rights are a bad thing, but that we may be already past the point where increased protection provides any additional incentive to creators. You yourself mention that "record companies (and movie companies) [...] have managed to mold the laws to their liking", which does not suggest a balanced approach. Cheers, Froggy > Greg Mossman a écrit : > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Froggy Yes indeed, but I wonder where the people are that not so long ago in this very NG condemned file-sharing as stealing...  SignatureMichael Wolf ----- Cthulhu For President. Why settle for the lesser evil? remove stopspam to reply > Yes indeed, but I wonder where the people are that not so long ago in > this very NG condemned file-sharing as stealing... -I- said it was stealing. I also said I didn't give a damn. > > Yes indeed, but I wonder where the people are that not so long ago in > > this very NG condemned file-sharing as stealing... > > -I- said it was stealing. > > I also said I didn't give a damn. Who said anything about sharing? I was going to give it to him. > As evidenced by the fact that no noteworthy litterary work was produced > between the time printing press was invented and copyright laws > implemented. Or by the fact that societies where none of these notions > exist failed to produce anything of artistic value. Exactly. Nothing but caveman drawings. All that French "art" from Lascaux, no wonder you're ashamed. Greg Mossman a écrit : > > As evidenced by the fact that no noteworthy litterary work was produced > > between the time printing press was invented and copyright laws [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Exactly. Nothing but caveman drawings. All that French "art" from Lascaux, > no wonder you're ashamed. That's why we tried to bury them. Cheers, Froggy > Then came cassettes and > copying music became very common. There was nary a peep from the music > industry. They clearly didn't care. Your hearing must have been bad. The 1971 Sound Recording Amendment to the 1909 Copyright Statute was largely a response to music industry complaints. Starting in the 70's the music industry tried very hard, and almost succeeded, in getting congress to impose a royalty tax on blank cassettes and audio recording equipment, with the proceeds going to the music industry. When you and 17 other people started bootlegging music on reel to reel decks in the 50's they weren't concerned becuse it wasn't worth the effort. When real hi-fi cassette decks began getting popular and the industry thought that a lot of people were, or would soon start, bootlegging music they went to work. Their efforts can easily be correlated with the ease and fidelity with which music could be copied and the slower growth of music sales. SignatureSteve The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable belief that it was intended as a statement of fact. If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address. Steve a écrit : > > Then came cassettes and > > copying music became very common. There was nary a peep from the music [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > congress to impose a royalty tax on blank cassettes and audio recording equipment, > with the proceeds going to the music industry. And while they apparently were not successful in the US, we do have such a tax in France (yes, we simply cannot resist a new tax). And this was a neat idea, as evidenced by the great boom in musical creativity experienced by France, and the corresponding global cultural dominance we now enjoy in this sector, while the US music industry slowly faded... Cheers, Froggy > And this was a neat idea, as evidenced by the great boom in musical > creativity experienced by France, and the corresponding global cultural > dominance we now enjoy in this sector, while the US music industry > slowly faded... Oh yeah, French music. Didn't you guys write that Freres Jacques song? A classic. >>And this was a neat idea, as evidenced by the great boom in musical >>creativity experienced by France, and the corresponding global cultural [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Oh yeah, French music. Didn't you guys write that Freres Jacques song? A > classic. and then there was Soeur Sourire... SignatureMichael Wolf ----- Cthulhu For President. Why settle for the lesser evil? remove stopspam to reply Greg Mossman a écrit : > > And this was a neat idea, as evidenced by the great boom in musical > > creativity experienced by France, and the corresponding global cultural [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Oh yeah, French music. Didn't you guys write that Freres Jacques song? A > classic. And don't forget Maurice Chevalier singing the Aristocats' theme. Cheers, Froggy >Greg Mossman a écrit : > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Froggy And Thank Heaven For Little Girls. How did he make his lip do that weird thing? JF >>Greg Mossman a écrit : >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > JF Ah yes, those were the days when an old geezer could sing such a song without being arrested on the spot on pedophily charges... SignatureMichael Wolf ----- Cthulhu For President. Why settle for the lesser evil? remove stopspam to reply > > You're confusing licensing with copyright, and I don't believe that MP3s > are [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > that he will ensure that he and Doug do not listen to the same song at the > exact same time... Thus, no copyright violation, right? I always did like the Borland licensing. Dennis >> No, but I got a new iPOD thingy if it comes in mp3. > > Stop by and I'll fill it up for you. I've only got 1,500 or so mp3s, > everything from classical to trucker, to country to oldies, to rock. If I > ever owned it, I have it. If I thought I would like it and knew its name > I acquired it. If it happened to get in my way (usually), I saved it. You own the copyrights to all those? Or are you openly flaunting U.S. Copyright Law again? >>> No, but I got a new iPOD thingy if it comes in mp3. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You own the copyrights to all those? Or are you openly flaunting U.S. > Copyright Law again? I'm just letting him use my device to back up his collection in case of failure. > I'm just letting him use my device to back up his collection in case of > failure. You make a very good point there Doug... In the computer profession, we spend a lot of money in planning for disaster recovery... Part of this consists of offsite backups of your data... As many companies learned in New Orleans during Katrina and in Houston during Allison, storage of your offsite data in the same city and locations susceptible to the same sort of damage as your primary site is not that good of an idea... The fact that you are volunteering to allow Lee to use some of your storage space as an offsite backup repository is quite commendable... >> I'm just letting him use my device to back up his collection in case of >> failure. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > are volunteering to allow Lee to use some of your storage space as an > offsite backup repository is quite commendable... My mom taught me to think of others first. > My mom taught me to think of others first. Does your laptop play/read dvd's? If so, I will burn you hours of music onto a dvd that you can copy onto your ipod, and I have Das Boot Directors Cut. >> My mom taught me to think of others first. > >Does your laptop play/read dvd's? > >If so, I will burn you hours of music onto a dvd that you can copy onto your >ipod, and I have Das Boot Directors Cut. Now that is a good movie > > My mom taught me to think of others first. > > Does your laptop play/read dvd's? > > If so, I will burn you hours of music onto a dvd that you can copy onto your > ipod, and I have Das Boot Directors Cut. >> You own the copyrights to all those? Or are you openly flaunting U.S. >> Copyright Law again? > > I'm just letting him use my device to back up his collection in case of > failure. Another confuser of software licensing (which commonly allows for a backup) with copyright. Lee didn't license the use and subsequent copying of the MP3, he merely (presumably) bought himself a copy. There is no "backup" exception to copyright laws except in the limited case of libraries and archives, and that exception specifically excludes: "(2) No reproduction, distribution, display, or performance is authorized under this subsection if - (A) the work is subject to normal commercial exploitation; or (B) a copy or phonorecord of the work can be obtained at a reasonable price". I doubt that Lee qualifies as a library or archive, and in any case, the MP3s are certainly still subject to normal commercial exploitation and/or can be obtained at a reasonable price. What's scary is that he offered to fill it up for you, claiming he had over 1,500 songs. Section 506(a) makes it a criminal offense to wilfully reproduce copies with a total retail value of over $1,000.00. 18 U.S.C. sec. 2319(c) sets forth the punishment: (c) Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(2) of title 17, United States Code- (1) shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution of 10 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of $2,500 or more; (2) shall be imprisoned not more than 6 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and (3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000. So the big question becomes whether the 1,500 songs, or whatever it takes to fill up your MP3 player, have a retail value of over $2,500 in which case Lee gets 3 years in jail, or whether it's between $1,000 and $2,500 and Lee only gets 1 year in jail. > >> You own the copyrights to all those? Or are you openly flaunting U.S. > >> Copyright Law again? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > if - (A) the work is subject to normal commercial exploitation; or (B) a > copy or phonorecord of the work can be obtained at a reasonable price". More technically, companies typicaly own their data, so they can make as many copies as they like. <snip> Dennis "Greg Mossman" wrote You presume a great deal. First, you presume I purchased software, something that is, in most cases, incorrect. I purchased hardware, records, CDs and Tapes. Such music makes up a substantial majority of what I have backed up to a software format. Unlike the MP3 music available for purchase these days, there was no exclusion, no claim to continued ownership associated with the purchase. I own them free and clear of imposed restrictions. To the best of my knowledge, the only restriction is that I may not duplicate them for financial gain. I'm sure you didn't see anything in my post to suggest financial gain. Even if I had purchased them recently, you have no idea what the terms of the purchase might have been. Some software comes with specific authorization to create a backup copy. Some does not. Some can freely and legally be copied and shared and some can't. Grateful Dead music is a good example of software that has been legally recorded and shared for years. That may or may not be changing now. Some people buy the rights to redistribution according to specific terms and some don't. Finally, as I recall, copyrights eventually expire. Assuming this is correct, I guarantee you that some of my music is old enough to have long since expired. Finally, you presume, without evidence, that I have offered to make and distribute a duplicate. Nothing in my offer says or implies that. It is perfectly legal for me to loan or sell my legally owned copy of software to others. I hope you pay more attention to evidence in your real work than you have in this thread or at least wait until a crime has been committed, evidence has been obtained, a charge has been brought and a jury has convicted, before you start sentencing people. Lee > I hope you pay more attention to evidence in your real work than you have in > this thread or at least wait until a crime has been committed, evidence has > been obtained, a charge has been brought and a jury has convicted, before > you start sentencing people. OTOH this is rec.scuba ... It is therefore quite appropriate that people will pass judgement based on the misinterpretation of part of a statement that you may or may not have made, or maybe quoted, or maybe you quoted and someone else commented, whatever, regardless of your actual actions and intentions. Remaining silent will not help at this stage. Anything you post can and will be used against you in twisted ways you cannot even begin to imagine, especially by Popeye 5 years from now. You have the right to try and weasel out, and to have trolls, smartasses and sockpuppets present during any thread. If you cannot afford sockpuppets, trolls and smartasses will be provided for you at the expense of the newsgroup. Cheers, Froggy > OTOH this is rec.scuba ... > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > present during any thread. If you cannot afford sockpuppets, trolls and > smartasses will be provided for you at the expense of the newsgroup. Love it!! :^) > OTOH this is rec.scuba ... > > It is therefore quite appropriate that people will pass judgement based > on the misinterpretation of part of a statement that you may or may not > have made, or maybe quoted, or maybe you quoted and someone else > commented, whatever, regardless of your actual actions and intentions. > Remaining silent will not help at this stage. Anything you post can and > will be used against you in twisted ways you cannot even begin to > imagine, especially by Popeye 5 years from now. Possibly the greatest praise I've ever received here, this almost brought a tear to my eye. Thanks, Mitch. >You have the right to > try and weasel out, and to have trolls, smartasses and sockpuppets [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Froggy Now -this-, John Francis, is "priceless". >> I hope you pay more attention to evidence in your real work than you have in >> this thread or at least wait until a crime has been committed, evidence has >> been obtained, a charge has been brought and a jury has convicted, before >> you start sentencing people. >> > OTOH this is rec.scuba ... > anything you post can and will be used against you > in twisted ways you cannot even begin to imagine, > especially by Popeye 5 years from now. > You have the right to try and weasel out, > and to have trolls, smartasses and sockpuppets > present during any thread. > If you cannot afford sockpuppets, trolls and smartasses > they will be provided for you at the expense of the newsgroup. and thus you win "The Laugh of the Day Award" > Cheers, > > Froggy > I hope you pay more attention to evidence in your real work than you have in > this thread or at least wait until a crime has been committed, evidence has > been obtained, a charge has been brought and a jury has convicted, before > you start sentencing people. OTOH this is rec.scuba ... It is therefore quite appropriate that people will pass judgement based on the misinterpretation of part of a statement that you may or may not have made, or maybe quoted, or maybe you quoted and someone else commented, whatever, regardless of your actual actions and intentions. Remaining silent will not help. Anything you post can and will be used against you in twisted ways you cannot even begin to imagine, especially by Popeye 5 years from now. You have the right to try and weasel out, and to have trolls, smartasses and sockpuppets present during any thread. If you cannot afford these, they will be provided for you. Cheers, Froggy so thinks should work in the exact reverse order > > I hope you pay more attention to evidence in your real work than you have in > > this thread or at least wait until a crime has been committed, evidence has [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > during any thread. If you cannot afford these, they will be provided > for you. exactly :-)))))))) > Cheers, > > Froggy > > so thinks should work in the exact reverse order > You presume a great deal. First, you presume I purchased software, Nope. An MP3 file is not software. It is a "phonorecord" embodied in digital form, versus a "computer program" which is a set of instructions to a computer. Copyright law doesn't recognize "software". > I purchased hardware, records, CDs and Tapes. Such music makes up a > substantial majority of what I have backed up to a software format. Since when are you allowed to "back up" music? > Unlike the MP3 music available for purchase these days, there was no > exclusion, no claim to continued ownership associated with the purchase. ? Copyright protection is automatic, even if the (c) notice doesn't appear on the work. But most commercial recordings bear the copyright notice anyhow. > I own them free and clear of imposed restrictions. To the best of my > knowledge, the only restriction is that I may not duplicate them for > financial gain. Obviously you're lacking in basic knowledge then. > I'm sure you didn't see anything in my post to suggest financial gain. Financial gain is irrelevant to whether or not you violated the law. It may be relevant as to the punishment. And "financial gain" is defined as "receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works" so it's interpreted rather broadly. > Even if I had purchased them recently, you have no idea what the terms of > the purchase might have been. Of course I do. Most (99%+) commercial recording copyrights are managed by several clearinghouses, none of which are in the habit of licensing the copyright along with a purchase of a single recording. > Some software comes with specific authorization to create a backup copy. We're not talking software. We're talking music recordings. > Grateful Dead music is a good example of software that has been legally > recorded and shared for years. Legal? Perhaps you could muster the argument that the Dead have impliedly consented to tape trading, but AFAIK, the only thing they've specifically allowed is taping their concerts for individual use. Their commercial recordings are protected under U.S. Copyright Law just like all the rest. How many live Dead songs were you "giving" to Popeye? I didn't take you for a Deadhead. > That may or may not be changing now. Some people buy the rights to > redistribution according to specific terms and some don't. Finally, as I > recall, copyrights eventually expire. Assuming this is correct, I > guarantee you that some of my music is old enough to have long since > expired. If the music is legally in the public domain, then it may legally be copied (but a new performance of an old song creates a new copyright). I guarantee you that some, or most, of your music is not in the public domain. > I hope you pay more attention to evidence in your real work than you have > in this thread or at least wait until a crime has been committed, evidence > has been obtained, a charge has been brought and a jury has convicted, > before you start sentencing people. I hope you pay more attention to what I write, rather than whine that you're being falsely accused of a crime you meant to commit. This is what I asked you: > You own the copyrights to all those? Or are you openly flaunting U.S. > Copyright Law again? You had said ">> Stop by and I'll fill it up for you. I've only got 1,500 or so mp3s, >> everything from classical to trucker, to country to oldies, to rock. If I >> ever owned it, I have it. If I thought I would like it and knew its name >> I acquired it. If it happened to get in my way (usually), I saved it." Since your offer was to fill it up, and you're boasting that "if I ever owned it, I have it", it's pretty obvious to anyone who would be sitting on a jury that you meant to copy, not give, your MP3s away. At the least, your statement would probably suffice as probable cause grounds for a search warrant. If you truly meant "give" and not "copy", you should be more precise with your language. After all, you're a high ranked federal employee working in a law enforcement capacity and posting in a public forum and therefore subject to a higher level of scrutiny. Your obvious lack of knowledge of federal copyright law is blatantly demonstrated in this and previous threads on the subject. I suggest you educate yourself a bit more before making any future declarations of how you plan to dispose of copyrighted material in your possession. > Nope. An MP3 file is not software. It is a "phonorecord" embodied in > digital form, versus a "computer program" which is a set of instructions to > a computer. Copyright law doesn't recognize "software". MP3s cannot have viruses embedded into them (probably because MS didn't come up with the format)... Thus, they're data, not software... WMAs can have macro viruses in them, so they could be classified as more software than MP3s could... Of course, this depends upon your definition of "software"... Does it mean just the executable program or does it also mean the data that the executable program operates upon? I suspect that traditional copyright law doesn't fit well with the digital age, but of course that won't prevent lawyers from making money trying to make it fit... > Since when are you allowed to "back up" music? Since about 1954. >> I own them free and clear of imposed restrictions. To the best of my >> knowledge, the only restriction is that I may not duplicate them for >> financial gain. What were the rules in 1954? >> Even if I had purchased them recently, you have no idea what the terms of >> the purchase might have been. > > Of course I do. Most (99%+) commercial recording copyrights are managed > by several clearinghouses, none of which are in the habit of licensing the > copyright along with a purchase of a single recording. Of course you don't, either. You don't know when they were purchased, how they were purchased or who they were purchased by or from. Hell, you don't even know if they were purchased. All you know is that some purchases made today are done on a single user basis and, frankly, I question your 99% statement. Feel free to provide a cite. > Legal? Perhaps you could muster the argument that the Dead have impliedly > consented to tape trading, but AFAIK, the only thing they've specifically > allowed is taping their concerts for individual use. So, you admit the possibility. > How many live Dead songs were you "giving" to Popeye? I didn't take you > for a Deadhead. I don't know. We haven't discussed details. What you did, or did not take me for, is simply an expression of your ignorance, not a statement of fact. > If the music is legally in the public domain, then it may legally be > copied (but a new performance of an old song creates a new copyright). I > guarantee you that some, or most, of your music is not in the public > domain. Some of my music certainly isn't, but until I told you that, you could not guarantee me anything. >> I hope you pay more attention to evidence in your real work than you have >> in this thread or at least wait until a crime has been committed, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I hope you pay more attention to what I write, rather than whine that > you're being falsely accused of a crime you meant to commit. Seems to me you discussed my pending jail terms in some detail. Lee > What were the rules in 1954? I have no idea. The laws of 2005 are the laws that apply today. >> If the music is legally in the public domain, then it may legally be >> copied (but a new performance of an old song creates a new copyright). I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Some of my music certainly isn't, but until I told you that, you could not > guarantee me anything. Of course I could. You said rock music. Copyright protection lasts 70 years from the death of the "author". There wasn't much rock music 70 years ago. > Seems to me you discussed my pending jail terms in some detail. Obviously you have to be found guilty before you go to jail. I figured you knew that. That requires not only your violation of the law, but also your getting caught. Hopefully the warning of potential jail time will at least smarten you up enough to keep you from getting caught. Bragging about potentially illegal exploits on a public forum isn't usually the best way to stay out of jail. How do you think they catch all the AOL child molesters? > There is no "backup" > exception to copyright laws except in the limited case of libraries and > archives... Where's the "Fair Use" exception? > So the big question becomes whether the 1,500 songs, or whatever it takes to > fill up your MP3 player, have a retail value of over $2,500 in which case > Lee gets 3 years in jail, or whether it's between $1,000 and $2,500 and Lee > only gets 1 year in jail. Assuming exactly 1500, they IMO have a fair value of well under $1000, based upon: a) Apple's iTMS, which retails all individual songs at $0.99, b) Ibid, which retails albums (typically ~14 tracks) at $9.99 c) A truer determination of fair market value of content via used CD's d) The lower fair market value of a lossy MP3 vs. a CD format Starting with (a) alone, the contents are worth no more than $1485; using (b) for grouped pricing (still at full retail), it drop to $1070; for evaluating (c), used CD's usually retail for no more than 30% of new, and since the data content loss of a CD is minimal (arguably zero), if the product actually had a fair market value comparable to its original selling price, it would have retained it in the used marketplace, but since it doesn't, this factor applies cumulatively, suggesting a net retained value of around $321; finally, the lossy format in (d) has a 95% file size reduction; the perceptable acoustic loss that results is unequivicably present, and while its value loss is YMMV, at least a 30% reduction in effective value would appear appropriate, which would then place total worth at $225. This works out to $0.15/track, which doesn't sound like much, but I understand that it still exceeds that which the Labels typically pay the original creating artist for their works. BTW, an observation: since the content almost certainly came from multiple sources, how is it appropriate to try to make a case of penalties based on an aggregate sum? I would expect that each individual party would have to make their own individual claim, would they not? -hh >> There is no "backup" >> exception to copyright laws except in the limited case of libraries and [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > value would appear appropriate, which would then place total worth at > $225. And don't forget, they're used. :-) > This works out to $0.15/track, which doesn't sound like much, but I > understand that it still exceeds that which the Labels typically pay [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > -hh > And don't forget, they're used. :-) This factor was already taken into account with item (c). -hh > And don't forget, they're used. :-) Get a $29 copy of News Rover: http://www.newsrover.com/ Use the MP3 music search function and search by title, musician or keyword. It will search every MP3 binary newgroup to find what you are looking for. It downloads, decompresses and combines multi-part binaries automatically. >> There is no "backup" >> exception to copyright laws except in the limited case of libraries and >> archives... > > Where's the "Fair Use" exception? Where's the Fair Use? >> So the big question becomes whether the 1,500 songs, or whatever it takes >> to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Assuming exactly 1500, they IMO have a fair value of well under $1000, > based upon: > a) Apple's iTMS, which retails all individual songs at $0.99, > b) Ibid, which retails albums (typically ~14 tracks) at $9.99 > > Starting with (a) alone, the contents are worth no more than $1485; > > using (b) for grouped pricing (still at full retail), it drop to $1070; Both of which are over $1,000, not well under. > for evaluating (c), used CD's usually retail for no more than 30% of > new, and since the data content loss of a CD is minimal (arguably > zero), if the product actually had a fair market value comparable to > its original selling price, it would have retained it in the used > marketplace, but since it doesn't, this factor applies cumulatively, > suggesting a net retained value of around $321; > finally, the lossy format in (d) has a 95% file size reduction; the > perceptable acoustic loss that results is unequivicably present, and > while its value loss is YMMV, at least a 30% reduction in effective > value would appear appropriate, which would then place total worth at > $225. A prosecutor would make his prima facie case based on the readily apparent and understood "retail" value, i.e. (a). A good defense attorney might try your (c) or (d) tactics, but would likely lose the jury when talking about "perceptible acoustic loss". In any case, this only pertains to the criminal penalties. Civil penalties apply as well, including significant statutory damages when the actual damages can't be computed, and of course there are the attorneys' fees and other legal expenses to consider. > BTW, an observation: since the content almost certainly came from > multiple sources, how is it appropriate to try to make a case of > penalties based on an aggregate sum? I would expect that each > individual party would have to make their own individual claim, would > they not? No. Almost all current music copyrights are held by ASCAP or BMI, who take care of enforcing copyright issues, royalty payments, etc. > >> There is no "backup" > >> exception to copyright laws except in the limited case of libraries and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Where's the Fair Use? Uses of my own and not anyone else's. To that end, I was referring to your specific citation which appeared to prohibit the traditional allowances for creating personal "backup" copies for one's own personal use. What you quoted sounds more like the Digital Millenium Act stuff, rather than the older and more universal (ie, not exclusively digital content) discussions, which IIRC Sony's legal case allowed for the creation of the VCR market, teachers were allowed to photocopy limited text excerpts for classes, individuals were permitted to make personal backups, and so forth. > A prosecutor would make his prima facie case based on the readily apparent > and understood "retail" value, i.e. (a). But of course...that's his job. > A good defense attorney might try your (c) or (d) tactics... Because the Defense only needs to meet the standards of reasonable doubt. To that end, since a Google of (unfair+music+prices) returns 1.9 million hits, it is pretty clear that the market value of music content is a topic of dispute...and that may be sufficient reasonable doubt to not allow an interpretation of (b) that just slightly exceeds the Prosecution's effective minimum of $1000 for higher damages. > > BTW, an observation: since the content almost certainly came from > > multiple sources, how is it appropriate to try to make a case of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > No. Almost all current music copyrights are held by ASCAP or BMI, who take > care of enforcing copyright issues, royalty payments, etc. In other words, the individual content owners have coordinated (Defense attorney: "conspired as an Oligpopoly") to delgate an element of their IP rights to a single (and for-profit) third party (Defense attorney: "mercenary"). FWIW, please understand that I'm not particularly railing against the rights of IP owners; what rails me is that if the IP protection varies by a full order of magnitude depending on what kind of IP it is: if its music/text, its a minimum of 70-95 years, but if its an invention Patent (mechanical to medical), its only 14 years. IP is supposed to be a reward for creativity, but these risk-reward ratio's are severely out of balance relative to each other. -hh > Uses of my own and not anyone else's. To that end, I was referring to > your specific citation which appeared to prohibit the traditional [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > text excerpts for classes, individuals were permitted to make personal > backups, and so forth. I believe the Sony case was wrongly decided. The DMCA is an indication of that. The Sony court felt that "time-shifting" was a fair use, that VCRs merely facilitated someone watching a broadcast program at a later time or date. However, it perverted the intent of the fair use statutes in that it permitted an entire copy to be made. The previous examples of fair use were situations such as a teacher copying limited text excerpts, not making a full copy. Other statutes allowed for backup copies to be made by archivists, libraries, and educators in certain situations. Clearly if Congress had wanted to allow personal backups, it could have done so. Instead it adopted the DMCA. Sony is still good law. The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 specifically allowed personal backup of audio recordings, but meant to protect artists from piracy by imposing a copy-protection scheme on digital recording devices to prevent second and further generation "backups" from an original. The courts again thwarted Congress by ruling that computers don't count as digital recording devices. A big problem in this area is that a lot of the judges just don't get it. Many are elderly and come from very non-technical backgrounds and the law moves slower than the pace of the technology. Perhaps the day may come when we're required to sign licensing agreements before purchasing any copyrighted materials. > But of course...that's his job. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > doubt to not allow an interpretation of (b) that just slightly exceeds > the Prosecution's effective minimum of $1000 for higher damages. It may or it may not. 1,500 songs is a lots of music. Juries often attract the elderly, who have nothing else better to do then sit in court all day. The elderly understand that 45s contained exactly 2 songs, LPs about 10-12. A retail value of $1,000 for 150 LPs won't shock them since they'll picture a thief running out of the music store carrying a stack of records a couple feet high. > FWIW, please understand that I'm not particularly railing against the > rights of IP owners; what rails me is that if the IP protection varies [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > be a reward for creativity, but these risk-reward ratio's are severely > out of balance relative to each other. 20 years. I think only design patents are limited to 14 years. One difference is that technology is important practical stuff that can help save the world. Art is fluff. Who cares if Britney Spears can keep people from copying her music for 95 years? Another reason is that many patented ideas would have occurred to others given time. Copyright law doesn't produce someone else from coming up with a similar idea and producing it, just so long as it is likewise original and not copied. Patent law, however, is a race to file. Someone else can independently come up with an identical solution to a problem, yet be a day late, and the first guy gets to make billions. How fair is that? > I believe the Sony case was wrongly decided. The DMCA is an indication of > that. YMMV. Personally, I'd say that the DMCA and the Sonny Bono Copyright extention simply reek of Corporate donations to buy self-serving legislation. > Perhaps the day may come when we're required to sign licensing > agreements before purchasing any copyrighted materials. Haven't installed any software lately, have you? > 1,500 songs is a lots of music. Juries often attract the elderly... If its a "lot" really depends on who you ask; I do agree that it will tend to break down by age. > > FWIW, please understand that I'm not particularly railing against the > > rights of IP owners; what rails me is that if the IP protection varies [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 20 years. I think only design patents are limited to 14 years. Perhaps we're talking about different IP protections? From: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hlc "HOW LONG COPYRIGHT PROTECTION ENDURES Works Originally Created on or after January 1, 1978 ... is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author's life plus an additional 70 years after the author's death. In the case of "a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire," the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author's death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author's identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter." For Works prior to January 1, 1978, the specifics get messy, but in essence, Disney did make sure that the legislation applies to Walt's Mickey, and all of Elivis's works remained protected until IIRC the year 2047. > One difference is that technology is important practical stuff that can help > save the world. Art is fluff. Who cares if Britney Spears can keep people > from copying her music for 95 years? Its the holders of those copyrights - - often the record labels - - are the ones who care, and they are undying Corporate entities. As such, they want nothing that they currently own exclusive rights over to ever pass into the Public Domain, because that theoretically represents a financial loss, even though many of them are actually squandering the value of their current 'Books' through complete neglect - - its like a farmer with an abandoned vegetable garden who's upset that someone may come in and take something that which he has abandoned. > Another reason is that many patented ideas would have occurred to others > given time. Music has certain fundemental harmonies as well...and looking at the recurrence of themes in Country music (woman, dog, truck, heartbreak), content too :-) Plus there's literal "covers" of other artists songs which require payments. The "Apples vs Oranges" arguement is weak, because in both cases, the very existence of the Law is to provide IP some degree of marketplace protection so as to reward innovation. > Someone else can independently come up with an identical solution to a > problem, yet be a day late, and the first guy gets to make billions. How fair is that? Compared to copyright protections, both guys got royally screwed. A cigarette lighter is only worth protecting with a Patent for 14 years (and realistically, will only be in non-competitive production for half of that if the IP holder's lucky), yet the contracted work advertising jingle written to sell that very same lighter gets 95 years. That's fair? -hh >> Perhaps the day may come when we're required to sign licensing >> agreements before purchasing any copyrighted materials. > > Haven't installed any software lately, have you? "any" copyrighted materials. So far, it's limited to software. >> 20 years. I think only design patents are limited to 14 years. > > Perhaps we're talking about different IP protections? No. 20 years for most patents. Only design patents are 14 years. > Its the holders of those copyrights - - often the record labels - - > are the ones who care, and they are undying Corporate entities. As [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that someone may come in and take something that which he has > abandoned. That can be done with tangible property as well. Supermarkets are notorious for tying up prime spaces with long-term leases well after they've moved out, just to spite the competition and prevent them from moving in. The consumer suffers when there's no neighborhood market. But you can't tell people how to use their property (except for municipal zoning laws, of course). I have plenty of abandoned dive gear that I'm just too plain lazy to use or sell, but that shouldn't mean someone else can just break in my garage and steal it. Greg Mossman a écrit : > But you can't tell people how to use their property (except for municipal > zoning laws, of course). I have plenty of abandoned dive gear that I'm just > too plain lazy to use or sell, but that shouldn't mean someone else can just > break in my garage and steal it. Well, you just admitted that it's abandoned property, so whoever finds it should be allowed to keep it. Now we just need to find a legal way to enter your garage. Cheers, Froggy > Now we just need to find a legal way to enter your garage. That, and to get Greg to stop ignoring the crux of my statement on fairness: GM> Someone else can independently come up with an identical solution to a GM> problem, yet be a day late, and the first guy gets to make billions. How fair is that? HH> Compared to copyright protections, both guys got royally screwed. HH> A cigarette lighter is only worth protecting with a Patent for 14 years... HH> ...yet the contracted work advertising jingle written to sell that very HH> same lighter gets 95 years. That's fair? -hh -hh a écrit : > > Now we just need to find a legal way to enter your garage. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > That's fair? The question is more whether the protection granted is sufficient to stimulate innovation and creation. Apparently artists are much greedier and less altruistic than scientists and engineers ... Another odd thing is that the shortening lifecycle of artistic creation should result in a shortening of the protection granted. But it's the other way round. IIRC the post-mortem protection was somehow justified by the idea that an artist might die before is genius was recognized, but that at least his heirs shoud benefit... not so many recent examples of that, despite the premature death of some rock musicians. Cheers, Froggy > The question is more whether the protection granted is sufficient to > stimulate innovation and creation. Apparently artists are much greedier > and less altruistic than scientists and engineers ... IMO, its more likely not altruism, but who's more likely to be exploited by an employer into permitting their IP rights to be transferred away (scientists/engineers tend to be slightly more financially caring/savvy). > Another odd thing is that the shortening lifecycle of artistic creation > should result in a shortening of the protection granted. But it's the > other way round. IIRC the post-mortem protection was somehow justified > by the idea that an artist might die before is genius was recognized, > but that at least his heirs shoud benefit... not so many recent > examples of that, despite the premature death of some rock musicians. The "heirs" arguement? Let's use Elvis Presley as an case study. Elvis died 28 years ago (1977), at the fairly young age of 42. Based on the (death+70) duration of current US copyrights, his works will remain locked up under one owner (whoever that owner is) to control price until the year 2047. His beneficiary Heirs: Wife: Priscilla Presley. She was born in 1945, so as per standard life expectancy statistics, she will probably not live to age 102 to see the commissions end. Odds are, she'll die around 30 years earlier, so there's pragmatically no difference for her between a protection of (life+70) or (life+40). Children: Lisa Marie, born 1968. To survive to 2047 would mean that she would have to live to age 79, which also exceeds the standard life expecancy statistics, so the odds are that she'll be covered for her entire life too. Theoretically Youngest Possible Child would have been born in 1978. They would have been covered until age 69. The Government's Social Security and Medicare would take care of them if they had been lousy investors. Lisa would be covered to retirement age with a (life+56) copyright protection. Grandchildren: Lisa Marie has had two: Danielle (born 1989) and Benjamin (born 1992). Neither of them ever met their Grandfather. If they had, then Elvis's works under the (life+70) would then last for their entire statistical lifetime. But since Elvis died young, they will have to suffer the financial loss of the cessation of Elvis's copyright-protected revenue stream at the tender young ages of 55 and 58... ...and do note that this means that they'll each be at least a decade older than their grandfather who created the works that they're benefitting from when they incur this financial hit. YMMV, but I think a 50 year old can more than take care of himself. In fact, most people would say that the limit of perceived fairness for grandchildren would be through college (age 25) which here would call for protection until 2017, or Elvis' (life+40). For this concept of "financial protection" for the heirs of an artist, in this case study of a "tragic death at age 42", the current protection lasted for effectively two *full* human generations. Compared to other forms of compensation, is this fair or excessive? YMMV, but I say excessive. -hh -hh a écrit : > > The question is more whether the protection granted is sufficient to > > stimulate innovation and creation. Apparently artists are much greedier [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > transferred away (scientists/engineers tend to be slightly more > financially caring/savvy). Actually, it seems that resarchers are quite willing to publish their discoveries, and let other people re-use them with no other condition attached than crediting the initial discoverer. It woud be great if all these great generous artistic souls could do the same. > > Another odd thing is that the shortening lifecycle of artistic creation > > should result in a shortening of the protection granted. But it's the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The "heirs" arguement? Let's use Elvis Presley as an case study. > Elvis died 28 years ago (1977), at the fairly young age of 42. That's the official version... Now I readily agree that the heirs argument is ludicrous. To start with, I am not 100% convinced that people should be allowed to inherit. As for protection during the author's full lifetime, when someone who already made a multi-million dollars fortune is getting worried because some of his earlier works may fall in the public domain ... well, since this guy is clearly not willing to contribute to the public good, then the community maybe made a mistake by granting him IP rights in the first place. In any event, I fail to see where is the rationale for the current trend towards lengthening the copyright protection period, given that apparently the current regime provided a more than sufficient incentive to create. I don't think there is any shortage of would-be artists. Cheers, Froggy <snip> > not so many recent > examples of that, despite the premature death of some rock musicians. and 2-Pac, or at least, that's what I've heard. I swear, I've never seen a situation where a dead artist has released as much music after his death as 2-Pac. > HH> Compared to copyright protections, both guys got royally screwed. > HH> A cigarette lighter is only worth protecting with a Patent for 14 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That's fair? What's not fair about it? Who cares about a lighter jingle? Why would you want to copy it? It doesn't bother me. On the other hand, if there were only one way to make a lighter work and some guy got the monopoly on it for 20 years, selling lighters for $500 a piece, I'd be pissed off every time I lit a match. I simply don't see the problem with long-term copyrights because there's nothing I need to copy. Lighter jingles, Britney Spears music, Ann Coulter "literature", modern "art", who needs it? However, it would suck if the price of practically all goods went up because of the need to pay royalties or licensing fees for all the subparts of just about anything. That $20 fleece coat that's made in China will now cost $200 because of the fleece royalty, the zipper royalty, the pocket royalty, the royalty to the embroidery-machine maker for the logo, the royal |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message